Fortune Life Insurance Co. Vs COA

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 748 29/08/2019, 11)00 AM
G.R. No. 213525. January 27, 2015.*
FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,

petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER;
COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN VISAYAS;
AUDIT GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; and
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Registered Mail; Proof of

Service; Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court requires that if the
service is done by registered mail, proof of service shall consist of the
affidavit of the person effecting the mailing and the registry receipt,
both of which must be appended to the paper being served.·The
petitioner obviously ignores that Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court concerns two types of proof of service, namely: the affidavit
_______________
* EN BANC.
287
VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 287

Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Commission on
Audit (COA) Proper
and the registry receipt, viz.: Section 13. Proof of Service.·

x x x. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its
receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter
together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee. Section 13 thus requires that if the
service is done by registered mail, proof of service shall consist of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdb4cf0c9cba12707003600fb002c009e/p/ASK417/?username=Guest Page 1 of 14
the affidavit of the person effecting the mailing and the registry
receipt, both of which must be appended to the paper being served.
A compliance with the rule is mandatory, such that there is no proof
of service if either or both are not submitted.
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; The petition for
certiorari under Rule 64 is similar to the petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, and assails a judgment or final order of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC), or the Commission on Audit (COA).·As to
the nature of the procedures, Rule 42 governs an appeal from the
judgment or final order rendered by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Such appeal is on a question of
fact, or of law, or of mixed question of fact and law, and is given due
course only upon a prima facie showing that the Regional Trial
Court committed an error of fact or law warranting the reversal or
modification of the challenged judgment or final order. In contrast,
the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is similar to the petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, and assails a judgment or final order of
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), or the Commission on
Audit (COA). The petition is not designed to correct only errors of
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Questions of fact cannot be
raised except to determine whether the COMELEC or the COA
were guilty of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64
are different. In the former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days
to file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed decision or
final order, or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration. In the latter, the petition is filed within 30 days
from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if
allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
interrupts the period; hence, should the motion be denied, the
aggrieved party may
288
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Audit (COA) Proper
file the petition within the remaining period, which shall not be
less than five days in any event, reckoned from the notice of denial.
Same; Same; Same; Grave Abuse of Discretion; Words and
Phrases; Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess
of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal
hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform
the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.·Grave
abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in
other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such
exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Eduardo Seguera Fortaleza for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Petitioner Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks

the reconsideration1 of the resolution promulgated on
August 19, 2014,2 whereby the Court dismissed its petition
for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court due to its noncompliance with the provisions
of Rule 64, particu-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 229-242.

2 Id., at p. 226.
289
VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 289

Audit (COA) Proper
larly for: (a) the late filing of the petition; (b) the non-
submission of the proof of service and verified declaration;
and (c) the failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the respondents.3
Antecedents
Respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU)

and the petitioner executed a memorandum of agreement
concerning the life insurance coverage of qualified
barangay secretaries, treasurers and tanod, the former
obligating P4,393,593.60 for the premium payment, and
subsequently submitting the corresponding disbursement
voucher to COA-Antique for pre-audit.4 The latter office
disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis under
Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code).
Respondent LGU appealed but its appeal was denied.
Consequently, the petitioner filed its petition for money
claim in the COA.5 On November 15, 2012, the COA issued
its decision denying the petition,6 holding that under
Section 447 and Section 458 of the Local Government Code
only municipal or city governments are expressly vested
with the power to secure group insurance coverage for
barangay workers; and noting the LGUÊs failure to comply
with the requirement of publication under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform
Act).
The petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on
December 14, 2012,7 and filed its motion for
reconsideration on January 14, 2013.8 However, the COA
denied the motion,9 the denial being received by the
petitioner on July 14, 2014.10
_______________
3 Id.
4 Id., at p. 18.
5 Id., at pp. 13-22.

6 Id., at pp. 71-91.
7 Id., at p. 92.
8 Id., at pp. 92-104.
9 Id., at p. 70.
10 Id., at p. 6.
290

Audit (COA) Proper
Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on

August 12, 2014, but the petition for certiorari was
dismissed as earlier stated through the resolution
promulgated on August 19, 2014 for (a) the late filing of the
petition; (b) the nonsubmission of the proof of service and
verified declaration; and (c) the failure to show grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the respondents.
Issues
In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner submits

that it filed the petition for certiorari within the
reglementary period following the fresh period rule
enunciated in Neypes v. Court of Appeals;11 and that the
petition for certiorari included an affidavit of service in
compliance with Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. It
admits having overlooked the submission of a verified
declaration; and prays that the declaration attached to the
motion for reconsideration be admitted by virtue of its
substantial compliance with the Efficient Use of Paper
Rule12 by previously submitting a compact disc (CD)
containing the petition for certiorari and its annexes. It
disagrees with the Court, insisting that it showed and
proved grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in
issuing the assailed decision.
Ruling
We deny the motion for reconsideration for being
without merit.
I
Petitioner did not comply
with the rule on proof of service
_______________
11 G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633.

12 A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, November 13, 2012.
291
VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 291

Audit (COA) Proper
The petitioner claims that the affidavit of service

attached to the petition for certiorari complied with the
requirement on proof of service.
The claim is unwarranted. The petitioner obviously
ignores that Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court
concerns two types of proof of service, namely: the affidavit
and the registry receipt, viz.:
Section 13. Proof of Service.·x x x. If service is made by

registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the
registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return
card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in
lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or
sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
Section 13 thus requires that if the service is done by

registered mail, proof of service shall consist of the affidavit
of the person effecting the mailing and the registry receipt,
both of which must be appended to the paper being served.
A compliance with the rule is mandatory, such that there is
no proof of service if either or both are not submitted.13
Here, the petition for certiorari only carried the affidavit
of service executed by one Marcelino T. Pascua, Jr., who
declared that he had served copies of the petition by
registered mail „under Registry Receipt Nos. 70449, 70453,
70458, 70498 and 70524 attached to the appropriate spaces

found on pages 64-65 of the petition.‰14 The petition only
bore, however, the cut print-outs of what appeared to be the
registry receipt numbers of the registered matters, not the
registry receipts themselves. The rule requires to be
appended the registry receipts, not their reproductions.
Hence, the cut print-outs did not substantially comply with
the rule. This was the reason
_______________
13 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002, 388
SCRA 72, 80-81.
14 Rollo, p. 224.
292

Audit (COA) Proper
why the Court held in the resolution of August 19, 2014

that the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of
proof of service.15
II
Fresh Period Rule under Neypes
did not apply to the petition for certiorari
under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court
The petitioner posits that the fresh period rule applies

because its Rule 64 petition is akin to a petition for review
brought under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court; hence,
conformably with the fresh period rule, the period to file a
Rule 64 petition should also be reckoned from the receipt of
the order denying the motion for reconsideration or the
motion for new trial.16
The petitionerÊs position cannot be sustained.
There is no parity between the petition for review under
Rule 42 and the petition for certiorari under Rule 64.
As to the nature of the procedures, Rule 42 governs an
appeal from the judgment or final order rendered by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction. Such appeal is on a question of fact, or of law,
or of mixed question of fact and law, and is given due
course only upon a prima facie showing that the Regional
Trial Court committed an error of fact or law warranting
the reversal or modification of the challenged judgment or
final order.17 In contrast, the petition for certiorari under
Rule 64 is similar to the petition for certiorari under Rule
65, and assails a judgment or final order of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC), or the Commission on Audit
(COA). The petition is not designed to
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 229-242.

16 Id., at pp. 234-235.
17 Section 6, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
293
VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 293

Audit (COA) Proper
correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of

judgment.18 Questions of fact cannot be raised except to
determine whether the COMELEC or the COA were guilty
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64
are different. In the former, the aggrieved party is allowed
15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the
assailed decision or final order, or from receipt of the denial
of a motion for new trial or reconsideration.19 In the latter,
the petition is filed within 30 days from notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.
The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if
allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission
concerned, interrupts the period; hence, should the motion
be denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within
the remaining period, which shall not be less than five days
in any event, reckoned from the notice of denial.20
The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on

January 14, 2013, which was 31 days after receiving the
assailed decision of the COA on December 14, 2012.21
Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64, it had only five days from
receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to file
the petition.
_______________
18 Reyna v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011,

647 SCRA 210, 225.
19 Section 1, Rule 42, Rules of Court.
20 Section 3, Rule 64, Rules of Court, states:
Section 3. Time to file petition.·The petition shall be filed within
thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed
under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt
the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may
file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less
than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
21 Rollo, p. 7.
294

Audit (COA) Proper
Considering that it received the notice of the denial on

July 14, 2014, it had only until July 19, 2014 to file the
petition. However, it filed the petition on August 13, 2014,
which was 25 days too late.
We ruled in Pates v. Commission on Elections22 that the
belated filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 on
the belief that the fresh period rule should apply was fatal
to the recourse. As such, the petitioner herein should suffer
the same fate for having wrongly assumed that the fresh
period rule under Neypes23 applied. Rules of procedure may
be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice that is
not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness
in not complying with the prescribed procedure.24 Absent
this reason for liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to

prosper.
III
Petition for certiorari further lacked merit
The petition for certiorari is also dismissible for its lack

of merit.
The petitioner insists on having fully shown that the
COA committed grave abuse of discretion, to wit: (1) the
challenged decision was rendered by a divided COA proper;
(2) the COA took almost a year before promulgating its
decision, and more than a year in resolving the motion for
reconsideration, in contravention of the express mandate of
the Constitution; (3) the resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration was made up of only two sentences; (4) the
matter involved a novel issue that called for an
interpretation of the pertinent provisions of the Local
Government Code; and (5) in issuing the resolution, COA
Commissioners Grace Pulido-Tan and Heidi
_______________
22 Pates v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009,

591 SCRA 481, 488.
23 Supra note 11.
24 Canton v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 152898, February 12, 2007, 515
SCRA 441, 448.
295
VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 295

Audit (COA) Proper
L. Mendoza made it appear that they knew the Local

Government Code better than former Senator Aquilino
Pimentel who offered an opinion on the matter.25
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack
or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so

patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.26
A close look indicates that the petition for certiorari did
not sufficiently disclose how the COA committed grave
abuse of its discretion. For sure, the bases cited by the
petitioner did not approximate grave abuse of discretion. To
start with, the supposed delays taken by the COA in
deciding the appeal were neither arbitrary nor whimsical
on its part. Secondly, the mere terseness of the denial of
the motion for reconsideration was not a factor in
demonstrating an abuse of discretion. And, lastly, the fact
that Senator Pimentel, even if he had been the main
proponent of the Local Government Code in the
Legislature, expressed an opinion on the issues different
from the COA CommissionersÊ own did not matter, for it
was the latterÊs adjudication that had any value and
decisiveness on the issues by virtue of their being the
Constitutionally officials entrusted with the authority for
that purpose.
It is equally relevant to note that the COA denied the
money claim of the petitioner for the further reason of lack
of sufficient publication as required by the Government
Procurement Act. In that light, the COA acted well within
its authority in denying the petitionerÊs claim.
_______________
25 Rollo, pp. 239-242.

26 Delos Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169498, December 11,
2008, 573 SCRA 690, 700.
296

Audit (COA) Proper
IV
Petitioner and its counsel
exhibited harshness and disrespect
towards the Court and its Members
The petitioner contends that the Court erred in

appreciating the petitionerÊs noncompliance with the
requirement of the proof of service, alleging that even „a
perfunctory scrutiny‰ of the petition for certiorari and its
annexes could have easily shown that it had attached an
affidavit of service to the petition. It goes on to make the
following statements, viz.:
25. Apparently, the staff of the Justice-in-charge failed to verify

the PETITION and its annexes up to its last page, thus, the
erroneous finding that there was nonsubmission of the proof of
service;
26. In turn, the same omission was hoisted upon the other
members of this Honorable Court who took the observation from the
office of the Justice-in-charge, to be the obtaining fact, when in
truth and in fact, it is not.27
The petitioner and its counsel thereby exhibited their

plain inability to accept the ill consequences of their own
shortcomings, and instead showed an unabashed
propensity to readily lay blame on others like the Court
and its Members. In doing so, they employed harsh and
disrespectful language that accused the Court and its
Members of ignorance and recklessness in the performance
of their function of adjudication.
We do not tolerate such harsh and disrespectful
language being uttered against the Court and its Members.
We consider the accusatory language particularly offensive
because it was unfounded and undeserved. As this
resolution earlier clarifies, the petition for certiorari did not
contain a proper affidavit of service. We do not need to
rehash the clarification. Had the petitioner and its counsel
been humbler to accept
_______________
27 Rollo, p. 238.
297
VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 297

Audit (COA) Proper
their self-inflicted situation and more contrite, they

would have desisted from their harshness and disrespect
towards the Court and its Members. Although we are not
beyond error, we assure the petitioner and its counsel that
our resolutions and determinations are arrived at or
reached with much care and caution, aware that the lives,
properties and rights of the litigants are always at stake. If
there be errors, they would be unintended, and would be
the result of human oversight. But in this instance the
Court and its Members committed no error. The petition
bore only cut reproductions of the supposed registry
receipts, which even a mere „perfunctory scrutiny‰ would
not pass as the original registry receipts required by the
Rules of Court.
Accordingly, the petitioner and its counsel, Atty.
Eduardo S. Fortaleza, should fully explain in writing why
they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court
for their harsh and disrespectful language towards the
Court and its Members; and, in his case, Atty. Fortaleza
should further show cause why he should not be disbarred.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for
Reconsideration for its lack of merit; ORDERS the
petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, to
show cause in writing within ten (10) days from notice why
they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court;
and FURTHER DIRECTS Atty. Fortaleza to show cause
in the same period why he should not be disbarred.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio** (Acting CJ.), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Sereno, CJ., On Leave.
_______________
* * Per Special Order No. 1914.
298

Audit (COA) Proper
Brion, J., On Official Leave.
Motion for Reconsideration denied. Petitioner and Atty.

Eduardo S. Fortaleza ordered to show cause in writing why
they should not be punished for indirect contempt.
Notes.·The rules allow parties to file a pleading by

registered mail. (Heirs of Amada A. Zaulda vs. Zaulda, 719
SCRA 308 [2014])
Section 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court states that
for pleadings served through registered mail, proof of
service shall be made through an affidavit of the person
mailing the pleading, and the registry receipts issued by
the post office. (People vs. Espinosa, 721 SCRA 53 [2014])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Fortune Life Insurance Co. Vs COA

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fortune Life Insurance Co. Vs COA

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 748 29/08/2019, 11)00 AM

G.R. No. 213525. January 27, 2015.*

FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Registered Mail; Proof of

VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 287

and the registry receipt, viz.: Section 13. Proof of Service.·

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Petitioner Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks

1 Rollo, pp. 229-242.

VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 289

Respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU)

5 Id., at pp. 13-22.

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on

In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner submits

We deny the motion for reconsideration for being

11 G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633.

VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 291

The petitioner claims that the affidavit of service

Section 13. Proof of Service.·x x x. If service is made by

Section 13 thus requires that if the service is done by

70458, 70498 and 70524 attached to the appropriate spaces

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

why the Court held in the resolution of August 19, 2014

The petitioner posits that the fresh period rule applies

Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate

15 Id., at pp. 229-242.

VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 293

correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of

The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on

18 Reyna v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011,

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Considering that it received the notice of the denial on

this reason for liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to

The petition for certiorari is also dismissible for its lack

22 Pates v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009,

VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 295

L. Mendoza made it appear that they knew the Local

prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so

25 Rollo, pp. 239-242.

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

towards the Court and its Members

The petitioner contends that the Court erred in

25. Apparently, the staff of the Justice-in-charge failed to verify

The petitioner and its counsel thereby exhibited their

VOL. 748, JANUARY 27, 2015 297

their self-inflicted situation and more contrite, they

Carpio** (Acting CJ.), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

* * Per Special Order No. 1914.

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Brion, J., On Official Leave.

Motion for Reconsideration denied. Petitioner and Atty.

Notes.·The rules allow parties to file a pleading by

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi